Table 1.
Psychological intervention studies addressing cognitive impairment in cancer survivors.
| Reference | Design | Participants | Intervention | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (81) | RCT (intervention vs. waitlist) | 78 adults aged 65+ years with a history of chronic disease (n = 11 history of cancer) | Cognitive Behavioral Model of Everyday Memory (CBMEM): efficacy and awareness building, health promotion, strategy use, and relaxation. Group intervention, 8 sessions of 1.25 h each, over 4 weeks | Cancer survivors in intervention group improved in short-term memory on the Rivermead Behavioral Memory Test, memory self-efficacy, and metamemory. (Note: not planned as a cancer substudy) |
| (82) | Single-arm study | 29 women at least 3 years post-chemotherapy for breast cancer | Memory and Attention Adaptation Training (MAAT): education, self-awareness training, self-regulation, compensatory strategies. Individual therapy, 4 sessions of 30–50 min each, once per month, plus up to 3 phone calls and participant workbook | Significant improvements in neuropsychological test performance, self-reported cognitive function, and QoL |
| (83) | Partially Randomized Controlled Trial (two interventions vs. treatment-as-usual) | 96 women post-chemotherapy for stage I or II breast cancer, undergoing inpatient cancer rehabilitation | Neuropsychological Training Group: small group functional training and compensatory strategies for memory and attention in everyday situations. Computer intervention: individual therapist support for using software addressing memory/attention. Both groups attended 4 1-h sessions per week during their stay in hospital (3–5 weeks) | Improvements across most neuropsychological measures for all participant groups (i.e., no effects were specific to the interventions) |
| (84) | RCT (intervention vs. active control) | 267 adults aged 65+ years; 22 cancer survivors: 14 intervention group, 8 control group | CBMEM (see above) compared to health information control condition | Cancer survivors in CBMEM declined less in visual memory performance over 14 months and improved more than control group on subjective memory measures. (Note: not planned as a cancer substudy) |
| (85) | RCT (two interventions vs. waitlist) | 88 breast cancer survivors | Memory training: group memory exercises and skills practice. Processing speed: computerized training using increasingly difficult processing tasks. Both interventions used 10 1-h training sessions in small groups over 6–8 weeks | Both intervention groups improved neuropsychological test performance more than waitlist group, but processing speed training showed earlier benefits and generalized to memory performance whereas memory training not associated with changed processing speed. Both showed improvements in subjective cognition, QoL, and distress |
| (86) | RCT (intervention vs. waitlist) | 40 women 18-months post-treatment for breast cancer | MAAT (see above) | Intervention group improved significantly more than waitlist participants on verbal memory (California Verbal Learning Test) and one QoL subscale (spiritual well-being) |
| (75) | Non-Randomized Controlled Trial (intervention vs. waitlist vs. community) | 55 participants. 32 cancer survivors >4 months post-treatments; 23 community comparison | Responding to Cognitive Concerns (ReCog): education, compensatory and enhancement strategies for memory, attention, emotional adjustment, sleep, and fatigue. Group sessions lasting 2 h held weekly for 4 weeks, participant workbook/homework | Significantly greater improvement on overall cognitive function, immediate memory, visuospatial/constructional, and delayed memory measures for intervention group. Reduction in subjective cognitive impairment and distress for intervention group |
| (87) | RCT (intervention vs. waitlist) | 28 adult cancer survivors >6 months post-treatment | Workshops addressing memory aids, memory skills, and mindfulness meditation. Group sessions lasting 1 h held weekly for 7 weeks | Intervention group improved significantly more than waitlist group on digit span and subjective cognition |
| (88) | Single-arm study | 27 women 1.5–5 years post-treatments for breast cancer. n = 8 for EEG substudy | Cognitive rehabilitation, targeting attention, executive and memory challenges. Group sessions lasting 2 h held weekly for 5 weeks, participant workbook/homework | Significant improvements on Symbol Digit, Stroop reaction time, Trails A time, and subjective cognition. Increase in EEG alpha power was associated with improved subjective cognition at 2-month follow-up |
| (89) | RCT (intervention vs. waitlist) | 41 breast cancer survivors | Online, computerized training program targeting executive function. Individual, home-based sessions lasting 20–30 min conducted 4 times per week for 12 weeks | Adherence was high. Intervention group improved significantly more on Wisconsin Card Sort Test, letter fluency, and symbol search, as well as some aspects of subjective executive function |